Recently, Microsoft's PowerPoint has come under a series of brutalattacks. Critics have accused the software of promoting simplisticthinking, dumbing down presentations, and constricting interactionsbetween presenter and audience (Schwartz2003; Parker 2001; Thompson 2003). One detractor went so far asto label PowerPoint “technological cocaine” and another demanded aban on the software, urging that “Friends Don't Let Friends UsePowerPoint” (Keller 2003; Stewart 2001). The most coherent expositionof PowerPoint's weaknesses has come from Edward Tufte, YaleProfessor and visual presentation guru. Tufte (2003) argues that PowerPoint is format—rather thancontent—or audience-oriented, and thus “turn[s] everything into asales pitch.” His list of grievances against the software is long.PowerPoint replaces serious analysis with chartjunk, logotypes, andcorny clip art. It breaks information into small arbitrary fragmentsand stacks it chronologically in a manner that inhibits analysisthrough comparison. It “messes up data with systematic intensity”through bad resolution, thin graphics, and low-information charts.PowerPoint's “inherent defects,” so says Tufte, are “making usstupid, degrading the quality and credibility of our communication,turning us into bores, wasting our colleagues' time.”Ron E. Hassner is assistant professor ofpolitical science at the University of California, Berkeley. Heremains indebted to Scott D. Sagan for introducing him to bothPowerPoint and baseball.